Bilderberger

No one here wants to play a rushed game and no one here realistically coerces the developers to release their game. I think what most people *really* want is just being spoken to. I mean, does anyone here actually think this kind of communication is beneficial? If you make the point that the devs should remain mute because the fan base might not like their ideas (Which is.... a bolt assumption) then why make this game accessible in the first place? Naturally unrest is growing, and rightfully so. Development IS slow, promises WERE broken, and if all of this was not enough, communication remains absolutely terrible. Frankly, I get it, yeah, things don't always go according to plan, you don't say. I am able to stomach and condone a lot IF it is communicated properly. IF you can't achieve your goals multiple times, you might want to tell the people you work for as to *why* things didn't work out and tell them as to *why* they should remain faithful to you regardless of your previous failures. You'd be surprised how understanding people can be. Alternatively, you can say nothing and let people guess so we can enjoy discussions about whether the project failed for political reasons, maybe it was Aliens, maybe the CIA was involved, who knows.

Given the current state of the designer (Which is improving, but still eons away from, well, being actually -done-) and the pace of developments I wonder how long this will take, if it ever sees the end of the tunnel that is.

I agree that information is important, crucial even. Which is why I do not understand the way the devs were handling the issue over the last couple of months.

Why... just why? What's the deal with communication? I frankly don't get it. I can't wrap my head around it. What's so bad about keeping us informed? Fear of backlash? Don't think keeping ones mouth shut will greatly help either.

I wholeheartedly agree. If this is what we're stuck with, as suggested above (A sentiment I unfortunately share), the game would lose a significant part of its USP.

I sincerely hope that anything we've seen so far is nothing compared to what this tool is supposed to look like once it is properly polished and done. There are so many quirks, I don't even know where to begin. We've got armor, armor schemes, hulls, lacking hull customization or customization in general, tid-for-tad +- XYZ% improvements, bulkheads, the campaign... ugh. I like to think that one day all of this will be of no importance and we all come together and laugh about how bland this now magnificent designer once was. I sincerely *want* to believe. But I don't. Time-wise I cannot see it happen. As I've said earlier, I am open for conviction, nothing is impossible, the game is not done yet, but... yeah. From my point of view it's either a long journey of early access or a half baked release. Let us all hope it's going to be neither.

Frankly, we already have that. As of right now, once you've built one ship, you've basically seen everything the period had to offer. Of course there are exceptions to the rule but, as many people already stated, in most cases you simply end up with the same design. To me the designer is quite bland. It was intriguing for the first few hours or so, but it lost most of its charm soon afterwards. So many fundamental issues ought to be fixed, yet I can't see it happening anytime soon. So much time has passed, so little has been done. Bulkheads for instance. Members of the community pointed it out months ago and still, we haven't gotten any kind of confirmation, besides, of course, the surprise that people actually consider it an issue. Furthermore, the fact that the devs are as transparent as the North Korean government when it comes to the future of their game doesn't make it any better. Excuse my pessimism, I am open for conviction, but experience has taught me otherwise.

Especially the last part, at least for me, is quite important. As of right now, I am still unsure about the current status of the game. One man's expectation on this forum appears to be another user's absolute nightmare. Yet both seem realistic in their respective vision, because the devs never explained as to which audience they wish to cater. Having at last *some* form of explanation as to where our journey is heading might alleviate the pain of not knowing what is yet to come. As it stands right now, many expectations are detrimental to each other and clearing up some of the mist surrounding these can appear to bear fruit in the long term as it, at least in my mind that is, avoids not only building up false expectations but also the anger if the former were "made" - Because let's be real here, expectations do not always revolve around actually made promises - and not fulfilled.

I wonder, what will this game set its focus on? Will it try to stay close to reality or will it go a more *creative* rout? I fear it can only be one thing or all the other.

Splendid!

In a strictly legal sense, yes. May the lord smite me for using the word. You're right though - it might cause confusion. I shall change it immediately. As I said: In the field of economics, you might be an investor, even though you are not - legally.

I think we are talking past one another. I referred to the economic definition of an investor, not the legal one. I did this with purpose as I wanted to illustrate an issue. First off: When I meant investor, I am referring to the following definition - The consumer invests his money into a project he wishes to gain utility from. You are actively investing your income with the intent to gain utility. What/How/When you gain utility I cannot say. Therefore, in the fields of economics, consumption is a form of investment. I do not argue against contracts, nor the way society handles contracts. I also do not refer to investor rights or consumer rights. I refer to the issue of incomplete contracts and the problems that arise from them. As I mentioned above, in practice, contracts cannot specify what is to be done in every possible contingency. Many people here, including myself, bought the game upfront, yet this was consensual. And this is perfectly fine, why would it not? The issue is rather, as I said, contracts cannot cover everything. Certain situations and issues may arise, situations such as prolongation, an undesirable feature revamp, you name it. This, combined with asymmetric information, creates an atmosphere, a shroud, of uncertainty. We could even drive this further and go on about worst outcomes, implications, etc. This is not relevant however. My point is the following: Said shroud of uncertainty makes life harder for our "investors", buyers, consumers, who spent their money in anticipation of an upcoming game which they hopefully will enjoy. Of course they did it voluntarily, it was their risk, but you don't want to leave them hanging in like this as an atmosphere of uncertainty concerning ex ante investments (general investments) is economically inefficient. So, what could we do if we wanted to alleviate the worries of our customers? Just give them some information on how things stand - I do not demand complete access to all information available but a bit of signalling really would not hurt. I am talking about Principal-Agent Problems, not the legal status of a buyer.

Investment activity in an economical sense is the allocation of money (or comparable goods and services) with the expectation of benefit (eg. returns) in the future. Purchasers are, in a sense, investors too, as they allocate their monthly income to further optimize the utility they gain from the products they buy. I never talked about contracts, now did I? We invest money because we expect a return of some sorts. Economically speaking, we are investors. Given the fact that the money we pay upfront is presumably used to further finance developing we might even drag this further. But we shall not, for the time being. Most contracts, in practice, cannot specify what is to be done in every possible contingency. This may lead to a series of Hold-up issues which, as a consequence, eventually, leads to a series of inefficient (and also unpleasant) outcomes and situations

I do neither agree nor disagree with this stance but I must confess that I dislike this point as it eliminates all kinds of criticism, because, well, you agreed to buy an incomplete game.

We are no different to investors because we are, in fact, investors. Literally. Albeit not in a strictly legal sense.

I deeply despise the degree of asymmetric information we're facing. And I also think that's the core of the issue at hand. Fortunately, some of it has been lifted recently. Yet, so many questions remain - I need not tell what systems ought to be improved as many people have already contributed many good and precise arguments concerning said issues, gunnery, armor and the like. I think many of us have the impression that our input (as a community) is more or less ignored. And this might very well be the case - or not. Obviously, the devs cannot reveal everything they have planned. That is impossible. Still - I think there is a lack of communication. Let me give you an example. Concerning gunnery and speed penalties - Many of us have made points about it, they spent much of their spare time researching and analyzing data to improve the situation. Perhaps the devs read them and decided to rework the system. Perhaps they did not. We do not know. We cannot even say whether many mechanics are final or not. Are they really solely working on the campaign right now, something they've told us would take yet another 6 months, just weeks before the official release ought to have happened? Or are they also working on something else? Maybe they've put the data to good use and they're cooking one of the best armor and ballistic systems. Or maybe they call the current Status Quo a day and leave it at that. I dislike that. I really do. I do not ask for much but I think some clarification is direly needed! As Doug already mentioned, certain members have invested incredible amounts of time and effort into this project. But will they continue doing so? Are people willing to take an investment if the shroud of uncertainty grows ever larger?

Intriguing idea. I'd like to know more about politics and research as well as the things you already mentioned.

Wouldn't the best course of action be to release the campaign before their steam release?

That sounds rather... vague. Maybe it's also just my aversion to information asymmetry.

Quite the elephant in the room.

Honestly, I don't understand why we shouldn't see a first campaign candidate before release. Is it really necessary to forcibly tie a first campaign release to the steam release? As of right now, I think the campaign is where the game will either shine or fail and I fear many current issues regarding balance and expectations are directly or indirectly tied to said campaign and its mechanics.

Which, judging from so many conflicts in this forum raging on, should be rather sooner than later as I suspect that many current issues are directly tied to the lack thereof. I think we should keep calm and wait for the developers to do their... thing.

Indeed. I truly wonder if and when we will receive new information concerning the current state of the campaign.

Frankly, I think this is the reason as to why we "need" the campaign. It gives context and limitations, something the Naval Academy Missions, or Custom Battle for that matter, do not. I think having that context, the environment, one could say, attached to the process of ship design, that's when things start to get interesting. It does not need to be a full Steam release but a first candidate should very well be accessible to us. Or at least a little bit of information on how things stand, just so we know what we're up for (aside from the already existing information).

If only we knew...